his lecturing us about the 47% interest in mitt romney's tax returns, now i've regained interest since he's maligning folks who have said you haven't paid your taxes therefore you're not worthy. mitt, show us your tax returns or shut up. he's not in a position to lecture us. bernie sanders, always a joy to have you on the program. thanks for your wisdom. >> thank you very much. >> eliot: that's "viewpoint" for tonight. have a great evening. >> jennifer: i'm jennifer granholm. tonight in "the war room," out of context, out of ideas and out of breath. mark twain probably said it best. if you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything. honestly, this guy must have people on the payroll just to keep track of it all! it's like he's putting together a puzzle. if he can say just the right things to the right people at the right time in the right state and confuse the people he offends just long enough for him to come back around and say brand new right things to all of

them, then maybe just maybe, he can time it all out to get one more vote and and then well, that's the problem, isn't it? because then god only knows what. >> jennifer: another day another reboot for the romney campaign. the latest strategy, more romney and that means according to politico that the campaign is going to try to show romney's softer side. and on the advice of senior adviser ed gillespie, he'll spell out his policies more clearly. good luck with that! he doesn't seem to have a softer side and the more voters find out about his policy positions the less they like. and then on the trail today romney didn't exactly stick to the plan and show his softer side. he actually went on the attack. hammering the president for "redistributing the wealth." >> romney: the idea of redistribution which is we're going to from some and redistribute it to others, that's a foreign concept that's never been part of the american

experience. this is the land where economic freedom has allowed people to pursue their dreams and in doing so and achieving success, they lift us as a nation. they give us jobs. i will not apologize for success here and i will never apologize for america abroad. >> jennifer: redistribution is a foreign concept. this isn't the first time romney, of course, has tried to paint the president as a socialist. now he's got a secret videotape to prove it or so he claims. his campaign has responded to the fallout from the leaked video of romney's gaffe-filled appearance at a fund-raiser in may by coming up with a video of their own. a 14-year-old clip of the president speaking at loyola university. it has been selectively edited to make it sound as if the about the had endorsed the redistribution of wealth. so here's the edited clip that the romney campaign released. in redistribution. at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody got a

shot. >> jennifer: oops. they happened to leave out the part where they said next -- the part where he talks about fostering -- get this, competition in the market place. >> obama: how do we pool resources at the same time as we decentralize delivery systems in ways that will foster competition, can work in the market place and can foster innovation at the local level and can be tailored to particular communities. >> jennifer: ahh! decentralization competition market place! oh, my goodness me! karl marx, he is not! today, "the washington post" fact checker gave the romney campaign's claim four pinocchios and this is what they wrote. his remarks were taken completely out of context. obama is not talking about all. instead, he speaks about competition, the market place and innovation.

nevertheless, the romney campaign seized on the remarks as evidence of obama's apparently socialist tendencies. now, it's obviously no big surprise that the romney campaign would lie because they've been doing this with great abandon but the really outrageous thing is that at the very same time he's trying to label the president as the big bad, redistributor, he's also assuring elderly voters in florida that he will protect their medicare. folks, what is medicare? it's a social program that operates by redistributing wealth from young to old. the money for medicare comes from payroll taxes. the 15% taken out of your paycheck each month and last year payroll taxes didn't quite cover it. so $451 billion had to come from other tax revenues. yet despite medicare being quintessential example of redistribution, today romney stood in front of a sign reading

"protect and strengthen medicare" and pledged, of course, to protect it. >> romney: i will save medicare and protect it through our seniors for today and our seniors of tomorrow. [ cheering ] >> jennifer: he's going all in on this because his campaign just unveiled a new ad featuring florida senator marco rubio. here he is, assuring seniors that their medicare will be protected. >> my mother's 81 and depends on medicare. we can save medicare without changing hers but only if younger americans accept that our medicare will be different than our parents when we retire in 30 years. but after all they did for us, isn't that the least we can do? >> romney: i'm mitt romney and i approve this message. >> jennifer: isn't the least we can do? to redistribute our money and give it to the seniors? even as romney pledges to protect and preserve medicare for actually pledged to cut programs that are

going to help others like the poor. he's obviously vilified welfare which costs 100 times less than medicare and social security. he's pledged to cut programs like food stamping and medicaid that obviously redistribute resources from the rich to the poor. so why is that kind of redistribution unacceptable, the kind that helps the working poor? well, i'll let mitt explain that for himself. >> my job is not to worry about those people. they should take personal responsibility. >> jennifer: so joining me from washington, d.c. is matt viser, political reporter for "the boston globe." knows mitt romney well. he was on the romney campaign trail leading up to the convention. matt, thank you so much for rejoining us back inside "the war room." >> yeah, thanks for having me. >> jennifer: you bet. so just give us some quick context. how damaging were the 47% comments? were you surprised to hear him say it? yeah, they were

damaging in several different ways. most importantly because they played into the narrative of him sort of wealthy and out of touch. you also had the element of this secret video and it sort of seeming like he's willing to say certain things to people who are paying $50,000 to hear his comments while he's saying something different to people he wants to vote for him. so i think they've -- they were damaging and they were surprising. these were things that romney doesn't normally say publicly. the number 47% was such a high number of voters to sort of cast off as victims dependent on government and people who would never support him in his words. >> jennifer: right. so this was a surprise. but can the redistribution argument that he now has latched on to, can it shift the conversation? >> there are challenges to it but i think that they're attempting -- it is almost -- anything but talking about the 47% in video i

think is what they want to shift the conversation to. so this is something that -- you know is getting a lot of attention today at least you know. so i think that we're now talking about something different. whatever the context, however the way and whatever the merits of romney's arguments, we're talking about something different that's not the hidden video. i think that's what they're attempting to do. >> jennifer: he's getting four pinocchios and obviously he's somebody who is protecting a system that redistributes. so i think this will give us all some more fodder for the next couple of days. but today, romney criticized the president for comments that he made about partisanship in washington on univision. something that romney is actually calling a gaffe. take a listen to what he said. >> obama: the most important lesson i've learned is that you can't change washington from the inside. you can only change it from the outside. >> romney: what you have today is a president who says he can't fix washington from the inside. it is time to get a president who understands what it takes to

get america working again and i do. >> that notion of not being able to fix washington from the inside a gaffe? is that something that's going to hurt the president? >> if i remember the context correctly from obama what he was talking more about sort of changing it through votes or through changing members of congress. in the context of immigration for example, obama wants people to vote in people who support the dream act so he's wanting the change to come from the outside and having different voters sort of vote out members of congress who don't support the dream act. so i don't know that it was a gaffe as much as romney trying to use that to highlight that he's not a washington insider which is an argument that romney made an awful lot during the primaries which is why paul ryan was such an unusual pick in one sense is the seven-term congressman who definitely is more of a washington insider. several things going on. >> jennifer: yeah, very

curious, the strategy. you can't criticize the president for being an insider an outsider, having a running mate who is of the obstructionist caucus. it is all very confusing. one of the strategies that romney's team has taken on or at least they've said they've taken on this morning is to show more of romney. more of himself. do you think that showing more romney is, in terms of his own personal likability, do you think that's a good thing to do on the campaign trail? >> i think it's responding a lot to a lot of republican criticism that he wasn't doing enough. he was -- rogny has been busy but the activities he's been doing, a lot of fund-raisers, a lot of debate preparations. he hasn't been visible that much. so i think the romney campaign is hoping to get him out there a lot more. we'll see him tomorrow. colorado over the weekend. ohio. early next week. the challenge is sort of how romney does when he's out there and sort of if he can kind of

convince people to his side of the argument which, if we believe all of the polls he's struggling with. he needs to sort of get some more energy convince people on his arguments which you know, sort of gets to be -- has yet to be seen. >> jennifer: has yet to be seen. at least today. who knows what mitt romney is going to show up on the campaign trail at any moment, at any hour. let's see, what time is it? we'll have a new mitt romney any minute. thanks for joining us. matt viser of "the boston globe." i just want to specify here that mitt romney has gone from sneering at the 47% to sneering at the word "redistribution." this fake outrage over redistribution is completely silly, really. every tax that's ever been levied is a form of redistribution. the sales tax that you paid on the clothes that you're wearing right now was redistributed to your state to pay for your state's public education system or the roads or some other

necessity. where do people think their tax dollars go? of course they're redistributed to serve everybody. and the romney/ryan plan, their policies and their budget it's's fine example of redistribution. honestly. but not in the way you might think. call it what you will, reverse robin hood or call it trickle up but the bottom line is the same. their policies take from the poor and the middle and they give to the rich. according to the tax policy center romney's budget would have the middle class pay on average $2,000 per family in order to finance the tax cuts that he's proposing for the wealthy. redistributing up! even under the existing tax code, the way redistribution actually works is somewhat ironic. remember romney claims that the 47% are moochers because they don't pay any federal income tax. but low and moderate income people pay a much larger share of their incomes in federal

payroll taxes than high income people do. payroll taxes, i mentioned they're deducted deducted from your paycheck every week, biweekly, every month for social security and for medicare. so the notion that half of america doesn't pay income taxes ignores the fact that those federal payroll taxes for medicare and social security are taken out of your check each month and are redistributed to the existing seniors who need it! and the lowest income workers pay close to 10% of their income in payroll taxes. but on the other end of the spectrum, mitt romney and the very wealthy, they pay on average 1.6%. 10% from the lowest. 1.6% from mitt romney and his class. mitt's low tax rate has been subsidized by you. mitt romney is a beneficiary of redistribution. he has been mooching off the middle class and if he's

elected, get ready for it, folks! wealthy moochers on steroids! coming up, make a miscue then hit them with some misinformation. we'll head out to the campaign front to see how mitt's standard fare is playing out with voters. plus i would imagine the biggest problem with running against michele bachmann would be figuring out where do i even start? we're going to ask her opponent that very question in just a bit. and later, how do you draw attention to an issue that never gets any play? reassembling the cast of an iconic tv show probably isn't the worst idea. it's thursday night in "the war room." we're just

>> jennifer: there are 47 more days until we all head to the polls on november 6th. let's take a quick look at two things that may end up mattering most in deciding if president obama receives a second term. swing state tv ads and

independent voters. here are the top three tv ad markets that both campaigns are targeting according to an analysis by wesleyan around cleveland denver and las vegas are seeing the most commercials in all of the swing states. but who are the swing state voters in those areas that matter? according to data "the war room" compiled today cuyahoga county where cleveland is has about 288,000 independent voters. denver county has about 101,000 independent voters and there are 132,000 around las vegas in clark county, nevada. nationwide campaigns just might have to go after those independent voters. today, abc news and "the washington post" released more data from their latest poll and 26% of independents are still "persuadable" compared to 21% of republicans and 15% of

democrats. for analysis and perspective on who these independent voters are and how they can be persuaded over the next seven weeks, we'll turn to washington, one of our favorite democratic mark mellman. he's ceo of the mellman group. mark, so great to have you back inside of "the war room." >> always a pleasure. thank you. >> jennifer: all right. so how are the remaining persuadable, independent voters shaping the campaign at this point? >> well, really, that's the important group to which both campaigns are trying to pitch their message. there's really two objectives that both campaigns have. one is to turn out their base. the other is to persuade the swing voters. the truth is -- romney campaign has to be able to win swing voters, has to be able to win independents in order for governor romney to win. president obama can probably lose narrowly, narrowly, those independent voters and still win if he turns out enough democrats

because there are more democrats than republicans in the country. but there's a battle to turn out each side's base and there's a battle to win as many of those independents as possible. >> jennifer: well, you wrote -- you have a column for the hill that you wrote in your latest column, you wrote given identification which you just mentioned, the president could probably still prevail if he lost independents but he cannot afford to lose them by too much. so what does that mean? how much is too much? how much of the independent vote does president obama need in order to win? >> it's hard to put a precise number on because nobody knows exactly what the proportion of democrats and republicans are going to be when they show up to the polls on election day. we is have some polls that say there is a 2-point republican advantage. that's the rasmussen poll. not very reliable in my judgment. there's polls that say it is a 5 to 8 point democratic advantage. there are some polls that have it as much as a 5 point democratic advantage. if you assume that 5-point

democratic advantage the president can lose narrowly but can't lose by 7 12, 14 points the democrats lost by in 2010 and still win in those circumstances. he's got to contain the loss and one hopes to win it. as you pointed out governor, the reality is this is really about individual states. and numbers don't matter a lot in individual states, you go to a state like ohio, for example nevada, where you do have pretty clear democratic pluralities of voters, there, the president can afford to lose independent voters by small margin. some of the other swing states, much more evenly balanced. much harder to lose independents have to win independents in those states. so it is really going to be different in each state. >> jennifer: well, let's just talk about what might be able to persuade them. there is a "usa today" gallup poll out yesterday. saying that 29% of independents say that romney -- that 47% comment, that it makes them less

likely to vote for him. and 53% say it won't make a difference. does that amount of voters saying that it won't -- make them less likely to vote for romney. is that something that's big enough to make a difference for the president? >> it is big enough to make a difference. you look at some of the analysis out there that will say and with justification any one gaffe doesn't have that dramatic an impact on the electorate. that tends to be true. in this case it reinforcing a narrative about mitt romney that he's detached from ordinary people. doesn't care about ordinary people. cares only about the wealthiest in america. it reinforcing that narrative in a dramatic way. that's a narrative that really is repulsive to most of those swing voters and that's why that's a really important comment. it may not change the race in and of itself but it reinforces that image for him. makes it very -- much more difficult for him to walk away

from that image as he's been trying to do of late. >> jennifer: so another group that is obviously an opportunity in terms of independents are youth. today, "the new york times" had a really interesting story about disaffected noncollege-educate and unemployed youth adult voters. they're mostly independent. i'm wondering are the parties risking losing a new generation of base voters because affiliated? >> absolutely right. one of the things that happens with age is more votes you cast for a particular party, the more like will you you are to continue to cast votes for that party. voters are creatures of habit afterall. before you have those habits formed, when you're young you're much more susceptible to going in either direction. those voters are susceptible to either campaign. both campaigns, i think are making intensive efforts to reach those voters but they are hard to reach. you can't reach them on college

campuses because there are people who were forced to drop out of college. or never got there in the first place. forced to drop out for economic reasons as that article explains and obviously some never went to college so they're a little more difficult to reach. that makes it hard for the campaigns to organize them. but clearly, that's an important target for both sets of campaigns. the other reality about that group, they're much less likely to vote. and that's -- >> jennifer: let me ask you about that. very quickly that "usa today" gallup poll looks at the swing state independent voters. only 43% of the swing state voters are enthusiastic compared to 73% of democrats and 64% of republicans. the enthusiasm level you know, how do the campaigns target those voters and get that enthusiasm up. again, real quickly. >> bottom line is enthusiasm isn't all that related to turnout. independents aren't enthusiastic because part of what makes them

int pent they don't like politics or political parties. >> jennifer: that's very interesting. they're disaffected anyway. they're not going to vote because they hate politicians. all right. that's mark mellman, ceo of the mellman group. thanks for joining us. >> thank you. >> jennifer: up next congress's approval rating is down around 13%. the only thing they can seem to agree on is that single digits are bust. stick around if you have the stomach for it. it's "the war room," only on current tv.

you disgust me. prove it. enough is enough. d-con baits are specially formulated to kill in one feeding. guaranteed. d-con. get out. > jennifer: you're back inside "the war room." i'm jennifer poll, just 13% of americans approve of the job that congress is doing. that is the lowest congressional rating gallup has ever measured this late in an election year. so why is congress so unpopular? well maybe it is because they can't seem to get anything done. if congress adjourns as they're scheduled to do this week, it is going to be the earliest election year departure since 1960. there is a really big difference between 1960 and today. the 80th congress got stuff done but today's lawmakers, of

course, are going to leave behind lots of unfinished business. topping that list, of course is passing a budget. just as important is striking a deal on taxes. house and senate have passed these competing bills on what to do when the bush era tax cuts expire at the end of the year. don't forget yesterday, they fail to pass a veterans jobs bill which as american as apple pie. they're blocking it in the next guest chalks it up to the dysfunction of both parties. now, tonight wear excited -- we're excited to welcome into "the war room," former republican congressman mickey edwards who's written the new book "the parties versus the people." mickey is joining us from washington. thank you so much for being inside "the war room." >> thank you governor. glad to be with you. >> jennifer: you bet. glad to have you. so you said that the political parties are the cancer at the heart of democracy.

what do you mean by that? >> well, look, first of all the first for you presidents of the united states, george washington, adams, jefferson madison all agreed on one thing. don't create political parties. don't especially create the kind of permanent factions that we have today. where democrats are always on one side and republicans are always on the other side. and they just simply are unable to come together. even on the most urgent issues to find a way to compromise and get something done. >> jennifer: well, we've polarization from the senate floor today. let's take a listen. >> the number one job of this congress domestically should have been more private sector jobs. the president's long-held view of redistribution as a goal for the government is not going to accomplish that. >> the president's put our entire economy in jeopardy in order to serve his own political interests. >> jennifer: it's just -- it is classic example of what goes

on every single day on the floor. you think that goes against the principle of the founding fathers as you mentioned and separation of powers? >> the issue is not polarization. we've had polarization all through our history. the issue is partisanship. it's loyalty to your team. what you see in washington today and what you see in a lot of state legislatures, even city governments is that on one side are people saying what do i do that helps my team win the next election. how can i redraw districts. how can i work the primary system so that my team wins and the other side is doing exactly the same thing. the subtitle in my book, thank you for mentioning the book, "the parties versus the people" but the subtitle is how to turn republicans and democrats into americans. by that i mean so when they're making decisions about important issues, their first thought is what do we need to do to move the country forward not how can

i help my private club, the republican -- >> jennifer: how do you do it? >> we start with the congressional primary system that the states have. where you can be a very small subset of the population. and get the nomination for whatever reason and then the other people in your party are not allowed to be on the ballot. that happened in delaware. million people in delaware, christine o'donnell beat mike castle. he could not be on the ballot in november because every state except four laws. >> jennifer: so in california, for example -- they take the top two vote-getters. one way to get away from this? >> absolutely. washington state did that in 2006. california in 2010. you know, jennifer, the people are afraid of the party system. they're fleeing from the party system more than 40% now call themselves independents.

they don't want anything to do with this private warfare between the clubs. >> jennifer: you served in the house what, from '77 until '93. i think you were considered at the time a solid republican. do you think that there is a chance that you would get elected today as a republican? >> i don't think i would get elected as a republican in a primary. i don't think ronald reagan would. >> jennifer: because you're a reasonable guy. because you happen to be a reasonable guy, right? >> but you know, it is a problem on the republican side. it is one on the democratic side what happens is if you get a small turnout in your primary you know, what happens is you get defeated by this tiny unrepresented group, christine o'donnell got 30,000 votes in the state of delaware and that ended the chances of anybody else running so you've gotta change the party primary system. you've gotta get rid of the sore loser laws that keep people off

the ballot. have the top two primaries open primary every qualified candidates on the ballot. every single qualified voter votes in that race. that's what you need to do -- take away from parties the right to control redistricting. in congress, take away from the party leadership, the right to decide whether or not you sit on a committee. you just gotta change the system. every incentive is to not cooperate. >> jennifer: you have written a great book about it, congressman. i really appreciate you sharing it with us. ironically up next, if there were a queen of partisanship and craziness or queen of crazy town, then her name might be madam bachmann. we're going to meet the guy who's taking on the congresswoman. and then later what does it take to get the actors on "the west wing" together for a reunion tour? you will be surprised. >> if people fail to realize that a straight ticket vote doesn't count in nonpartisan races, if they just casually vote the party line, then the

gaeme inc. thank gaemezilinsky, thank you for joining

>> within a day or so, the president of the united states will be taking a trip over to india that is expected to cost the taxpayers $200 million a day. >> it appears that there are individuals who are associated with the muslim brotherhood who have positions in very sensitive -- very sensitive positions in our department of justice, our department of homeland security, potentially even in the national intelligence agency. >> carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. but there isn't even one study dioxide is a harmful gas. [ whistle ] >> jennifer: i don't know about you but every time minnesota congresswoman tea party darling michele bachmann opens up her mouth i either kring or laugh -- cringe or

laugh out loud. how can somebody who is so out of touch with mainstream america, somebody who's so ignorant who's so dangerous, be a member of the u.s. house of representatives? many people were hoping that after her disastrous presidential run that ms. bachmann would fade quietly into the background. well i'm sorry to tell you she has no intention of going anywhere. she is running for re-election. this despite the fact she barely held on to her seat in 2010. she actually spent almost $12 million that year. more than any other congressional candidate in the country and she won with just 52% of the vote. tonight we want to introduce you to the brave soul who is we start at american motels with $2,000 in savings. >> times were tight with two young kids. >> we worked hard. >> we were blessed. >> it is time we help the middle class succeed, too.

that's why i'm running for congress. >> he's the man who hopes to end michele bachmann's reign of craziness. jim graves. welcome inside "the war room." >> thank you governor. glad to be here with you tonight. >> jennifer: we're glad that you -- you've joined us. when you told your family and your friends that you were going to run against michele bachmann, did they look at you like you were crazy or did they give you a standing ovation? >> you know, kind of both of the above. they kind of thought i was pretty out there to run against her but then they also said great. they gave me a big applause. somebody's gotta do it. she epitomizes everything governor, that's wrong with congress. she literally is the epitome of what's gone wrong. >> jennifer: give us your campaign elevator pitch. why -- how are you going to beat michele bachmann and why should okay. well, that's a good question. >> jennifer: quick. >> they need to vote for the truth. they're going to vote for somebody who's actually done it.

they're going to vote for somebody who knows how to get things done on the ground. knows how to bring people together, not divide people. knows how to message to the folks, not message to you why her fund-raising people. somebody that actually understands what is needed on the ground in the sixth district. the people are ready for a change. they're sick and tired of bending truth and making the crazy statements. so they're ready for somebody like me that actually came from the district. understands the district. understands the people. >> jennifer: jim, do people in the district see her as being a bit loopy? >> yeah. people have said she's gone a little bit too far. these latest comments about the muslim brotherhood, attacking the president while we're -- in a time of risk when we have people over in egypt and libya you know, their lives are at stake and she's making a political statement about it, people are ready for somebody that isn't just looking for the rock star. somebody who isn't trying to creating jocks and solutions for

the -- creating jobs and solutions for the district. >> jennifer: what are your polls telling you, do you actually have a chance? >> oh, yeah, definitely. polls tell us if the people get to know me, we win this election. right now, we're neck and neck. we're virtually in a tie. our i.d., our identification of who i am, what i stand for is going up every day. every day goes up, we pick up all of the persuadables, all of the independents that are looking for something different looking for a real solution. >> jennifer: that's encouraging. moderate republicans should be yours for the taking. i want to play a clip from your latest campaign ad. >> after the fire at the mill, michele bachmann never called the workers. >> didn't reach out. >> we heard from everyone else. >> she's too worried about her own career. >> to worry about anybody else. >> jennifer: now, her team is saying that the -- that ad is a character sneer. how do you respond to that? >> well, it is sneer at all. it is a fact. it is one of the tenants of why

i'm running for congress. the people want somebody to represent them. she never showed up. these people losing their jobs, they lost one of their coworkers. she never came to the plant. she never talked to the people. they want somebody on the ground, not out there trying to pitch their own personal agenda. not making pledges to grover norquist but pledges to the people themselves that work there and she's just not there. so that ad is totally factual. those are the people telling us that they want somebody to represent them. >> jennifer: now we talked about -- at the beginning of this segment, that she's got some really deep pockets. she's obviously spent a lot of money in the last race. how do you compete against all of that money? >> well, first and foremost, governor it is a message that counts in the votes that count not how much money you have in the bank. she's got a lot of money but we're going to have enough to get our message out and that's all we need to do. that's what's wrong with

politics right now. it's gotten to be all about the money. who raises the most money. i'm about who gets the most people. we gotta change congress. we know that. we need people that are centrists, willing to compromise, that believe in themselves enough to talk to the other side and i'm all about that. i've done that my whole life in business and i'll do it in congress. >> jennifer: you are one of a number of races that the democratic national party and the house campaign committee has targeted or is at least looking at to be able to displace the tea party members. do you feel like you're getting adequate support from the democratic national party? >> yeah, we're getting support. we like more support always but at the end of the day we're a centrist kind of candidate. we believe that we're going to be bipartisan and we're getting help from everybody. the independent party in minnesota is very strong and a lot of their leaders not the party itself but the leaders are supporting me.

and a lot of our moderate republicans that understand business understand we have real solutions to the real problems. they're coming across and they're supporting me. so we're going to have enough juice i guess to get the message out. thing. get the message out. >> jennifer: jim i think i speak for a whole lot of people that wish you good luck! we'll all be following this race as we go forward. thanks for joining me inside "the war room." >> governor, thank you so much. >> jennifer: you bet. of course. political junkies, long for the days of new episodes of the west wing. i loved that show. but now the actors of that political show are actually banding together for a cause! it's got to do with boating and state supreme courts across the country. it is a story will you only find in "the war room." it is next on current tv. >> it is a cataclysmic event unrivaled by the likes of any calamity since the dawn of history. >> boo-boo.

from silver screens... to flat screens... twizzlerize your entertainment everyday with twizzlers the twist you can't resist.

> jennifer: you're back inside "the war room." i'm jennifer granholm. great news political junkies the cast of the west wing has reunited. they're doing something i have never seen in all my years in

together in a new campaign video to tackle a major but little discussed crisis in our electoral process, the lack of voting in nonpartisan judicial races. take a look. >> explain this to me like i'm a 2-year-old. >> they check the straight party ticket box. they have voted for everything. but they haven't. they still have to vote on the nonpartisan section of the ballot. >> that's the part toward the back. >> michigan is one of 15 states that uses nonpartisan elections to choose their supreme court justices. this is bridget mary mccormack. mary mccormack's sister running for state supreme court in a nonpartisan section of the ballot. >> who's mary mccornel ac. >> something tells me she's delightful and smart. possibly hot. hard to say really. come on. we're walking and talking.

>> jennifer: i just this. the cast that you just saw also works in this endorsement for bridget mccormack who is the sister of actress mary mccormack who played kate harper for three seasons on the west wing. bridget is a university of michigan law professor. she's running for a spot on the michigan supreme court and because it is a nonpartisan position, a lot of voters might skip over that race. this is very bad. state courts overall decide 95% of this country's legal cases. so coming to us tonight from grand rapids and the great state of michigan is supreme court candidate bridget mccormack. bridge et, so great to have you inside "the war room." >> it's great to be here, governor. thank you for having me. >> jennifer: you bet. so how were you and your sister able to convince the entire cast of the west wing to make this commercial? >> well, it's not quite the entire cast.

hill is missing. but as it turns out it take -- it didn't take a lot of work convincing. i think the cast remains close. they're good friends and my sister asked and they all said sure. sounds like a good cause. >> jennifer: you didn't have to pay for that? >> no. you know what? no not at all. everybody devoted their time. all of the cast and all of the crew. we had to buy insurance. we bought some food for them while they were working. it cost us less than $5,000. >> jennifer: that's such a great thing. this psa runs for -- i want to say four minutes. are there plans to run a shorter version so that it can be aired on tv? >> no. it won't be on tv. it will live on the internet and hopefully enough people will see it by distribution as you may know, there is a generic version that doesn't reference me or my campaign at all. anyone interested in increasing voter participation can send around and hopefully we get people focused on voting the

nonpartisan section of the ballot. reinforce for our audience why is it so crucial that people vote in the nonpartisan judicial races? >> yeah, thanks for the question. you know, as you said in your intro, the state supreme court decides the majority of cases in our country. they make really important decisions every year on cases that affect all of our families. they affect our -- the way we can -- our right and they affect our businesses. and all of the issues they decide matter to everybody yet the number of people who actually vote in our state supreme court elections is extremely low. in michigan, just for example because it is nonpartisan on the ballot, the drop-off rate from folks who vote the top part of the ticket to the bottom is somewhere between 25% and 38% depending on the cycle. that's a lot of people not having a say in who sits on our

state supreme court. >> jennifer: so much of it probably is because they have no idea who the names are that they're missing. a lot of that is because a lot don't like the idea of judges having to run for office. what's your position on running for office as a potential justice? >> yeah, great question. with respect to your first point, not only do they not know who to vote for i also think in some cases people think they voted. if you voted a straight party ticket, no matter which party you voted for, you might think you voted for supreme court candidates but you have not. that's what we're really hoping to teach people. with respect to judges running for election, it is a complicated question. it is a question about which there has been a lot of interest. especially lately. and i personally trust the voters and like when the voters have a say as long as we live in a system where voters get

accurate information and that isn't always the case given campaign finance laws. >> jennifer: i have come around on this and believe that it is really not a good idea myself. in fact, so far judicial candidates have spent a record ads this election season, four times the amount they spent two years ago. obviously they're getting the money for buying those ads from somewhere. don't you think there is a potential for conflict of interest to put it lightly among those that they might be seeking contributions from if they end up appearing before them in the court. >> yeah, i think obviously there is -- there is a real problem with money in politics and general but particularly in the judiciary where in my view, it is welcome least of all for the reason you say. and not only for the reason you say. yes, it is one problem if, in fact, there is a conflict of interest. it is another problem if there is decreased public confidence

in the outcomes our produces. in the decisions our courts make. because even if there is not a conflict, everyone assumes there is. nobody knows exactly who's funding these elections and so then they assume that every decision the court makes is a political one and that is unfortunate because it really decreases public confidence. >> jennifer: in michigan, we have long known that michigan chamber of commerce, et cetera has supported and bought and paid for many of the people who are on the supreme court, at least that's the allegation. very disconcerting in terms of trust of the judiciary. bridget mccormack, thank you so much for joining us inside "the war room" with that totally entertaining campaign video. i really appreciate it. and brett ehrlich is turning his attention to swing state politics and he immediately regrets it.ú >> coming up, marco rubio tries to touch old people.

(vo) cenk uygur is many things. >>oh really? >>"if you ever raise taxes on >>the rich, you're going to destroy our economy." not true!

what we need are people prepared for the careers of our new economy. by 2025, we could have 20 million jobs without enough college graduates to fill them. that's why at devry university we're teaming up with companies like cisco to help make sure everyone's ready with the know how we need for a new tomorrow. [ male announcer ] make sure america's ready. make sure you're ready. at devry.edu/knowhow. ♪ ♪

>> jennifer: as the old adage goes, if you don't have anything nice to anything. brett ehrlich hates that rule. shh. brett's talking now. >> so much mitt romney. so little time. what are we going to do besides take a joke dump? >> joke dump. the romney campaign has new strategy. more mitt. it's a 180 from the old strategy. hide him quick. more mitt is the republican strategy until now it was the republican's worst fear. right up there with that guy at the intersection that tries to wash your windows. honey, lock your doors but don't make it look like you're trying to lock your doors. on monday, we heard mitt right write off the 47% and then yesterday, he said he was the president of the 100%.

marking the first time in weeks his numbers have actually gone up. to win over seniors, marco rubio stars in a new medicare ad. it's called least we can do. least we can do. is that the best you could do? you feel that your approach to medicare was my approach to the last three months of high school. mitt romney's new more mitt strategy was at work today at florida's ringling museum founded by the same guy who founded the ringling bros. circus. mitt always felt at home at the circus. it is a safe place for people like him have a knack for contorting themselves into awkward positions. that was a joke dump. don't worry, my jokes are 100% biodegradable. i'm done talking now. >> jennifer: okay. political junkies, thank you for joining us here in "the war room." tune in tomorrow night. my guests will be former labor secretary ro